Author: Hafiz Noor Shams

For more about me, please read this.

Categories
Society

[2127] Of Chin Peng, sympathy, injustice and sanctity of contract

The day I had a lunch appointment with a friend at the central business district in Sydney was one of those pleasant summer days. With blue sky and time aplenty, I walked the distance, which was about a mile or two from my home. As I approached the restaurant, my cell phone beeped. It was a message from the friend. She requested for an hour worth of postponement. With me already among streams of people crisscrossing the city centre minding their own business, I switched direction and headed toward Hyde Park to visit a prominent war memorial. Inside, on the wall carved the word Malaysia, along with other places where Australian forces had fought long ago. My mind immediately raced toward a period when communist insurgency was running high in Malaysia. Years have gone and sympathy for communism should be dead by now but it is has not.

The dishonorable path the Malaysian government takes with respect to former communist militants may unnecessarily fuel the fire of communism and the general political left in the country.

Communism is a disagreeable idea that restricts liberty. Its goals are arguably dreamingly nobly utopian. Its means are not however; its opposition to private property right is enough to demonstrate how communism is anti-liberty. Furthermore, good intentions and goals are never enough. History has shown how communism failed in all four corners of the world.

Wherever it still exists, it is a façade supported by capitalism, it exists side by side a ruined economy, its promises unfulfilled, or it only exists within the framework of democracy that communists in the real world — not mere theoreticians who failed to account for reality — long ago considered as an anathema. Communism simply fails to confront real world problems.

In great contrast, capitalism in one form or another continues to be the best system to ensure prosperity despite all criticism that have been lobbed at it and despite painful crashes that we see every now and then. It has been performing better at delivering prosperity than any form of communist solutions that any communist can realistically hoped for, so far. A stronger statement is possible: it has been performing better at delivering prosperity than any other system, so far. In the face of this observation, those who still cling to the promises of communism are being hopelessly romantic, bathed in stubborn denial and doomed for ideological failure.

The truth is self-evident yet, former communist militants — more so its former head Chin Peng who is unrepentant of past transgressions and his failed ideology — continue to receive sympathy from far too many individuals in the country.

For all the pain communism had caused all around the world and especially in Malaysia, only those on the political margin should be expressing sympathy to either communism or former communist militants, and not those near the centre. Yet, many close to the political centre do so. When those near the centre do that, then something is definitely amiss. It is worrisome for such sympathy to blossom in the mainstreams section of our society because such sympathy can sow the seed for future growth of communism.

At the very least, it creates a groundswell for strong support for the general political left in the country. Communism may be a weak movement here in Malaysia but in the future, especially with the proliferation of greater democratic culture, that statement does not have to be true, even if we are living in the age of Fukuyama’s end of history.

It can be the seed because a short-term factor may override dire long-term consequences of communism when individuals consider the issue. That factor is a linchpin for the sympathy former communist militants currently enjoy. That linchpin is injustice. A sense of injustice is the reason why there is sympathy for Chin Peng and other former communist militants.

It is a short-term factor because some time in the near future, the issue will be academic since nobody lives forever. Nevertheless, the refusal of Malaysian government to allow for the former leader of a defunct militant — some would say terrorist — movement to return to the land of his youth will no doubt be an example of injustices communists and communist sympathizers may highlight as part of their populist rhetoric to attract new acolytes for the hive.

It is an injustice because by refusing Chin Peng the right to return, the government is reneging on its obligations arising from the peace treaty signed between it and the communist. That treaty specifically calls upon the government to allow former communist militants to return to the country if the application is made before a deadline, which Chin Peng met.

That turns the matter into an issue of sanctity of contract. As much as communism is an enemy of liberty, the idea of sanctity of contract is a cornerstone of liberal societies. Indeed, one of the reasons for the establishment of a state in liberal tradition is the need to enforce contracts entered voluntarily, as long as those contracts do not violate individual liberty. When the state goes back on its words with impunity, it inevitably raises a very serious question regarding the legitimacy of a state. In a more concrete term, it undermines public trust in the Barisan Nasional federal government, which does not have a sterling reputation to start with.

One does not need a lecture on the importance of sanctity of contract in liberal tradition. One does not need to be a liberal to understand the idea of sanctity of contract in wider traditions. Surely, at some point in time, our parents or our teachers have impressed on us on the importance of keeping to our promises. Being true to our words, generally, is good ethics.

Opponents to the act of honoring the agreement among others cite that Chin Peng deserves no forgiveness for all the heinous crimes he committed. Furthermore, Malaysia would have been a very different place if the communists had succeeded. We might as well have been another North Korea. For that and more, Chin Peng may indeed deserve no forgiveness and in fact, continuous denunciations.

Nonetheless, in the words of Tunku ”˜Abidin Muhriz of the Malaysia Think Tank in an email exchange regarding this very matter among several libertarians, ”the issue of forgiveness and honoring a contract are separate.” Our refusal to forgive a person should not be the basis of us refusing to fulfill our obligation to the other person as stated in a contract. Therefore, there is a liberal case for allowing Chin Peng to return, unless there is proof that he has violated the 1989 Hatyai Peace Accord.

More importantly, by allowing the former militant leader to return and hence, fulfilling the obligation imposed on the Malaysian government, it removes injustice from the equation. Without injustice as a factor, there is little reason for those close to the political centre to sympathize with Chin Peng and thus, killing the seed for greater support — however small the increase is — for communism and the general political left in Malaysia.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on December 8 2009.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[2126] Of Mill and best and brightest in government

I admire John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. In it, the author succinctly describes the limits of the state and individual liberty. His defense of individual liberty against the transgression of the state and the majority is impressive to me, who is already familiar with core points Mill articulated in On Liberty even before learning Mill’s name. While all points are well-argued and logically derived from reasonable premises, I am hesitant to embrace a few of his conclusions. One of those conclusions revolves around talents and government.

Near at the end of On Liberty, Mill makes the case against government interference in the market. The context in which he frames the argument is the enhancement of the capacity of the government, or rather the state, to do evil. In order to limit this capacity, he disagrees in having the best and the brightest individuals be employed as part of bureaucracy of the state.

The idea of having the best and the brightest as part of the civil service is quite relevant in Malaysia. Various individuals in Malaysia have suggested that the civil service should attract the best through various means, including, and possibly, mainly by offering most competitive salary. Apparently, the same argument was raised in England at least before 1859, the year On Liberty was first published.

Mill’s opposition is beautifully put in a way that uses the benefits proponents of such mechanism celebrate as the mechanism’s weakness. He writes that these highly talents individuals would make the bureaucracy highly capable and beyond criticism of the public. Why? Paraphrasing Mill, the public will become ill-qualified “to criticize or check the mode of operation of the bureaucracy“. This sort of shield from criticism brings about authority to the bureaucracy to embark on programs which may or may not be useful. Furthermore, with the freedom from criticism, the bureaucracy will be comfortable in where it is and not improve.

According to Mill, if the bureaucracy is to be on its toes, they must be entity or individuals capable of raising criticism against the bureaucracy, “independently of the government“.

Perhaps, most eloquently, the more well-stocked the government is with the ablest of all mankind, the capability of evil by the state “would be greater“, delivered more “efficiently and scientifically“.

This as well as other points made against the idea of big government made in On Liberty are persuasive. I am doing an injustice by summarizing his idea here. The best way to fully appreciate the robustness of arguments made by Mill is to read the book.

Regardless of that, I think Mill may have taken a step too far down the street in forwarding the proposition on talents and the state.

I do not see how having the less capable becoming part of the bureaucracy can necessarily be beneficial to free individuals. Such bureaucrats, holders of public office and perhaps politicians may as well introduce policy based on unenlightened policy that incongruous to culture of liberty, considering that there is a relationship between being a liberal and education level.

Capable if not the best of talents will be needed to introduce and enforce policies, including those which are the most liberal. Without these talents, others out of the government would be able to outwit the state in matters such as protection of individual liberty and fraud, which is the function of a state in liberal tradition. A state that is unable to perform such function effectively is a worthless state.

Besides, Mill in On Liberty is concerned with capability of the bureaucracy to improve. Criticism is important but only capable talents can effectively bring about improvement to the bureaucracy. If improvement is a concern, surely capable talents need to be hired as part of the system to act upon the criticism.

More ominously is that the argument, while maybe attractive in a world where there is only one state and no external threat, does not account for a world with multiple different states. In a world where there are other hostile states, having incapable individuals running the bureaucracy may be disastrous. States compete with each other to forward its interest that may not coincide with the agenda of promotion and conservation of liberty. Wars do happen and incapable bureaucracy increases the likelihood a state — we are interested in liberal state — capitulating to tyranny originating from external forces.

The argument cuts both ways really. The trick is to ensure there are the brightest in and outside of government. The brightest in government will be tasked to introduce and to carry out good policies while the brightest outside will be free to criticize those inside apart from pursuing their own interests in the free market.

Therefore, I think Mill’s proposition should not be accepted unconditionally. The position taken by Mill should only be accepted when a majority or sufficiently large fraction of the best and brightest are already hoarded by the government. It should be a matter of degree, not of absolute.

Categories
Economics

[2125] Of we build buildings to increase our GDP

KULA LUMPUR: Three sites in the city have been identified for the development of iconic structures to spur growth in the economy.

Sources say they are Dataran Perdana in Jalan Davis, the area surrounding Stadium Merdeka and the vicinity of the Matrade Centre in Jalan Duta.

All the plots of land are privately owned. Two belong to government-linked companies — Pelaburan Hartanah Bumiputera Bhd and Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB) — while the Naza group owns 25ha in the vicinity of the Matrade Centre.

Economists were recently briefed by the Economic Planning Unit in the Prime Minister’s Department on the implementation of the iconic projects, as part of efforts to boost the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). [100-storey skyscrapers planned for Kuala Lumpur. Vasantha Ganesan. Presenna Nambiar. New Straits Times. December 7 2009]

Urm, yeah, okay…

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — I cannot resist this. What a bull!

We can definitely thank Keynesian thinking for this. Do you want greater aggregate demand? Build away!

Categories
Photography

[2124] Of Australians all let us rejoice…

Some right reserved.

Categories
Economics Environment Politics & government

[2123] Of Abbott’s plan is suspiciously boilerplate-like

Climate change has been very much the heart of Australian politics at the federal level for the past few months. It is the source of intense debate between the Labour government and the Coalition opposition. Within the Liberal Party itself, the proposed cap and trade arrangement has divided the party. Tony Abbott successfully replaced Malcolm Turnbull as the new Liberal leader exactly because of this issue.

The Turnbull fraction is prepared to work with the Rudd government on the cap and trade proposal. Others, perhaps, now called the Abbott fraction, do not. With Turnbull out and Abbott in, the cap and trade proposal has been scuttled in the Australian Senate.

On the front page of The Australian yesterday, Abbott made known a curious position. He accepts the challenges climate change poses and he accepts emission targets that Turnbull agreed to. What he rejects is any introduction of tax, as direct as carbon tax or as indirect as cap and trade scheme. In his own words, “[t]he Coalition will not be going to the election with a new tax, whether it’s a stealth tax, the emissions trading scheme, whether it’s an upfront and straightforward tax like a carbon tax.” In its place, he proposes implementing “land management and energy efficiency measures.”[1]

This is a curious position because I am grappling to see how his plan could achieve the reduction target he agreed to. Land management and efficiency measures sound like a boilerplate idea that lacks substance.

Despite actual inferiority of cap and trade to carbon tax, if done properly, it could be as effective as the simpler carbon tax. Land management and efficiency measures on the other hand will demand maneuver more complex than cap and trade.

In fact, complexity of a scheme makes it more susceptible to higher probability of failure. That happened in Europe with its version of cap and trade. One major feature that is attributable to European failure is the granting of free permits. Free permits arrangement is present in Rudd government’s proposed cap and trade scheme.[2]

Furthermore, Abbott’s measures appear similar to the Bush administration’s proposal of encouraging development of technology to address the need to manage carbon emissions in form of the probably now forgotten Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate.[3]

Technology is indeed the golden bullet. It can reduce emissions given a unit of activity. Of course, the technology is out there: carbon sequestering, micro mirror in space, the spraying of aerosol in the atmosphere, nuclear power, wind, solar, etc. But which one?

That is the weakness of Bush’s proposal.

Any proposal has to be concrete with implementable actions, Abbott’s measures are mere boilerplate. It lacks substance. It lacks actual implementable measures.

Boilerplate solution is sorely inadequate.

Perhaps it is unfair to criticize Abbott’s measures since it is still early days. After all, he is less than a week old as the new leader of the Liberal Party and as the Opposition Leader. It may be only fair to give him the opportunity to think and present his idea more thoroughly.

Unfortunately, time is running out. This is not a tired old green rhetoric. Election may loom and the Liberals risk further marginalization if there are no concrete alternative solutions, especially since the new Liberal leader accepts the need for action.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — TONY Abbott plans to fight a climate change election using land management and energy efficiency measures to slash greenhouse emissions instead of an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax.

[…]

Pressed for an alternative, he said the Opposition remained committed to an unconditional target of reducing emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 but would not embrace an ETS or a carbon tax. He said there were “lots of things” that could be done to reduce emissions through other means, many not involving significant costs.

These included more energy-efficient buildings, better land management and biosequestration. NSW Nationals Senator John Williams claimed Australia could offset 100 per cent of its carbon emissions for 100 years by lifting soil carbon by 3 per cent.

Mr Abbott also said he would welcome a debate on the use of nuclear energy, although he did not think it was a short-term option.

“The Coalition will not be going to the election with a new tax, whether it’s a stealth tax, the emissions trading scheme, whether it’s an upfront and straightforward tax like a carbon tax,” he said “We’ll have a strong and effective climate change policy, we’ll have it early in the new year,” he said. [Tony Abbott’s tax-free carbon plan. Matthew Franklin. The Australian. December 3 2009]

[2] — See Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme at Wikipedia. Accessed December 4 2009.

[3] — The world’s four largest coal-consuming countries have announced a pact to share technology for limiting emissions of greenhouse gases. The US, China, India, Australia – plus Japan and South Korea – signed what is being seen as a rival to the Kyoto Protocol to curb climate change, which the US and Australia have refused to sign.

The new pact will be known as the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate. It allows the countries to set their own goals for emissions of greenhouse gases, with no enforcement measures. This is in contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, which requires industrial nations to accept legally binding emissions targets. [US-led emissions pact seen as Kyoto rival. Fred Pearce. Newscientist. July 28 2005]